>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:22:09PM +1100, Grant Bayley wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same impression
>>> One Nation tried to give when it was in its ascendancy, and was
>>> laughed at when support for their "representative" views failed
>>> to materialise en masse at election time, instead being silenced
>>> by a majority that wasn't as vocal or as inclined to march on
>>> the streets with placards? Don't you guys have any doubts that
>>> the same will eventually occur here? None at all?
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Chris Maltby wrote:
>> I'm not sure quite how to parse that first sentence, but I'll
>> happily correct you for being wrong in comparing the current
>> anti-war movement with One Nation at its first flush. First, the
>> orders of magnitude are way out if you believe opinion polls - the
>> opposition to war is in a clear national majority while support
>> for One Nation reached no more than 10% nationwide (but higher in
>> certain hotspots).
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 04:24:58PM +1100, Grant Bayley wrote:
> Well that's sort of my point. No, I don't believe opinion polls.
Well, then, that would sort of explain the rest of your diatribe.
Mr Howard, howver, has shown a great deal of regard of opinion
polls up till now...
As for the question of standing for election, you may not have
noticed that the Greens (and Democrats) have been standing for
these kinds of platforms for a long time. It's not just a few
reds-under-the-bed Grant; unless you mean that the One Nation
"phenomemon" was just a few half-crazed red-neck gun nuts...
[We're really off topic now]